TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Union of Concerned Scientists

Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by vfx, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
    #1 vfx, Feb 24, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2012
    Surprisingly this group has not been all that EV friendly.A recent writing from them last NOv. * had a "long Tailpipe" comment. Really? From scientists?The recently opened a blog that is looking for comments. I encourage those of you who write more scientifically to post with your facts, citations and reasoning for your choice of driving a battery electric.David Friedman seemed to be reading and answering the logic based posts.Why Do You Love your Hybrid or Electric Car? - The Equation this seems to be their current stance: The UCS Model E: Electric Car Frequently Asked Questions | Union of Concerned Scientists don't believe they have factored in the energy used to transport and refine oil into gasoline.
     
  2. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA
    It's interesting to see that the carbon map linked through Eric's article lines up with reservation holders. Florida diverges from the pattern, with higher-than-average figures for both carbon content of its grid and Tesla reservations. Still, I think the numbers work out cleanly, that the carbon footprint of EVs is less than that of ICEs.
     
  3. gavine

    gavine Petrol Head turned EV Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,009
    Location:
    Southern New Jersey
    • Informative x 1
  4. flashflood

    flashflood Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Los Altos Hills, CA
    UCS is a far-left, radical, anti-progress, Luddite activist group. You don't even have to be a scientist to join.
     
    • Dislike x 2
    • Funny x 1
  5. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    10,365
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    Is your post intended to be in jest? Because I see no emoji to clue me into your cryptic meaning.

    Speaking with no attempt at humor or irony, in fact the UCS is a progressive, responsible, data-driven organization promoting a responsible long range change agenda.

    This commentary on the state of the EV market seems pretty reasonable Happy Fifth Birthday, Modern Electric Cars! Three Key Trends in the EV Market - The Equation

    This article also makes sense to me So Electric Cars Are Better—Now What? - The Equation

    I find many other EV-friendly articles on the UCS website.
     
    • Informative x 1
  6. LastGas

    LastGas Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    South Carolina
  7. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,502
    Location:
    Maine
    I think that the UCS has been pretty appropriate in its approach, being very data-driven.
     
  8. AB4EJ

    AB4EJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    The UCS articles talk a lot about numerous ways to encourage the adoption of EVs; still, I don't think they pay enough attention to the vehicle's cost. People have several criteria in mind when they go to select a car, with most people I talk to, the purchase cost of the vehicle is at the top of the list. So, you know how we're really going to popularize EVs? By getting the purchase cost significantly below that of a similarly-sized EV. Tall order, I know; but I think that is what it is going to take... that, and/or the cost of gasoline goes through the roof for whatever reason (taxes, contraction of supply, or whatever). The reason I emphasize a significantly lower purchase cost so much is because you have to overcome the fact that people have to deal with installation of a charging port, and also make it worth dealing with whatever range anxiety they have.
     
  9. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    10,365
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    I think you mean "below that of a similarity-sized ICE"?

    I can find references to EV purchase price in a number of UCS articles. They are aware of the cost issue. Specifically, see this article which I linked to in my post above Happy Fifth Birthday, Modern Electric Cars! Three Key Trends in the EV Market - The Equation

    Quote from that article: "Nissan, GM, and Tesla are all expected to release EVs with 200-mile ranges at an affordable price point. This range should make EVs fit into almost everyone’s daily driving needs with no anxiety over running out of charge. These cars will make the market for battery electric much larger than it is today."

    Clearly the cost of EVs is an issue that UCS understands.
     
    • Like x 1
  10. flashflood

    flashflood Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Los Altos Hills, CA
    They are rabidly anti-nuclear, for starters. And they are all-in for AGW. You can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously. If AGW is a world-ending threat, and nuclear power is less than world-ending, then both logic and data dictate that you be pro-nuclear until a real, actual, deployable base load power solution becomes available.

    As for their actual membership, I joined when I was in high school. I had zero credentials as a scientist, but they invited me. Union of Concerned High School Students isn't how they bill themselves.
     
    • Dislike x 1
  11. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    10,365
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    Using adjectives like "rabidly" exposes your biases.

    Of course they are "all in" for AGW. That's what the data shows. THE DATA.

    And there are many good reasons to be against building more nuclear power plants. Plus, it is becoming increasingly clear that the world's energy needs can be largely met by sustainably produced energy if we extrapolate current technology trends out 50 years or so. If we instead build a lot more nuclear plants and look ahead 50 years or so we see huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated that no one wants disposed of in their state or country and lots more nuclear material being moved around the planet with all the resulting risks that entails. No thank you. And please don't waste your time telling me that there are miraculous new nuclear plant designs that mean greatly reduced amounts of waste material and that are incredibly safe designs at a very reasonable cost. They haven't been built and its all marketing talk from the nuclear energy industry. Fission energy is a long term disaster.
     
    • Like x 3
  12. 3mp_kwh

    3mp_kwh Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    822
    Location:
    Boston
    The DATA show that the RGGI states will see a 44% rise in emissions, if their existing nuclear shuts off. It shows CO2 rising in MA, after Yankee shut down, and UCS I expect will do nothing to prevent Pilgrim from following. Places, like MA, are poised to become >60% reliant upon natural gas for electric generation. There's lots of things UCS ignores and economic data is something I'd argue they miss. "Science" should also betray their lack of policy focus.

    Example, UCS may still support hydrogen vehicles. It was with mutual support between auto makers, oil co's and places like UCS that I believe the critical mass to obligate CA tax payers to $~200 million in H2 stations came. Sure, you can make H2 with renewable energy, and look at H2 in the vacuum that UCS did, but if they had just a bit more economic and policy chops maybe they'd have realized from where ~96% of that stuff was going to come. In my estimation, they weren't thinking about the break-even distance between the cost of natural gas and electricity when doing H2 the favors they did. You can make it both ways.

    The closer you get to CO2, what's amazing to me is how people don't watch the data. There is a surprising amount of idealizing, group think, and other agenda getting in the way of effectively fighting AGW. Some are anti-nukes, some look at it with a jobs lens. Some are "pro-renewables, let the nukes close, now and we'll replace them". Well, some day maybe. Some are happy making energy more expensive, because it truthfully will lead to greater conservation. Not one of these always helps the AGW fight, and most do harm it in my opinion.

    Sometimes I think policy would be so much more effective if real people were more active, and objective about it. Instead, when it comes to CO2, they're absent or they "sign-up" and don't make waves. In fairness, places like I think UCS, NRDC and foundations can also be limited by mandate not to have an objective response to a problem. It can get in the way of funding, bread and butter.
     

Share This Page